ORDER Arun Mishra, J. In these writ petitions prayer is to quash the notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and also to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the year 1987 master plan of Rewa city was prepared. On 10-4-1990 the Housing Board submitted a letter to the Collector for acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of houses. Notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 were drawn on 10-5-1991. Notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 were published in the daily news paper Dainik Bhaskar on 23-5-1991. Notification and declaration were also published in another news papers; Dainik Jagran and Dainik Alok on 23-5-1991 and 27-5-1991. In the official gazette section 4 notification was published on 14-6-1991 whereas declaration u/s 6 preceded it. It was published in the gazette on 7-6-1991. Urgency clause was invoked to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5A as per order Annexure-P/6 on 7-5-1991. Petitioners participated in the land acquisition proceedings which were conducted by the land acquisition officer award was passed on April 30th, 1993 and the award P/13 was published on 7-6-1993. Thereafter these writ petitions have been filed before this Court on 14-6-1993, 19-7-1993 and 21-7-1993 on the ground that declaration u/s 6 could not be issued simultaneously on the same date along with notification u/s 4. Declaration u/s 6 has to be issued on a subsequent date. Thus, the submission of the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings are nullity and invocation of urgency clause when the proposal was submitted in the year 1990 and the authority took sufficient time to decide about question whether urgency was there, it means that there was no urgency. Thus, invocation of section 17(1) and 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry is bad in law. Though award has been passed, but, still the writ petition can be filed challenging the land acquisition as with promptitude after passing of the award petitioners have taken the steps to file the writ petitions. In the return filed by the respondents it has been contended that it is not the case of nullity of acquisition, but, simply of irregularity, notifications were drawn on same date 10-5-1991 as urgency clause was invoked. It is due to clerical error that both were published together in newspaper. In the return filed by the respondents it has been contended that it is not the case of nullity of acquisition, but, simply of irregularity, notifications were drawn on same date 10-5-1991 as urgency clause was invoked. It is due to clerical error that both were published together in newspaper. Owing to urgency the decision was taken to dispense with the enquiry and in news papers dated 23-5-1991 both the notifications were published. That cannot invalidate the acquisition. It was only case of clerical mistake for which land acquisition cannot be said to be illegal. It is a case of mere irregularity. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Due publicity was made in local news papers as required. Gazette publication was also made. Petitioner participated in the matter of passing the award and waited for seeing the result regarding determination of value of the land and only thereafter they have filed the writ petitions, which are belated. Thus, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for petitioners submits that declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be issued simultaneously with notification u/s 4. He placed reliance in State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. Vs. Radhey Shyam Nigam and Others, . He further relied on in S.H. Rangappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, , in which it has been observed that declaration u/s 6 has to be preceded by notification u/s 4 of the Act. There is distinction between declaration u/s 6 and notification u/s 4 purpose of both is different. In the instant case declaration u/s 6 and notification u/s 4 both were drawn on 10-5-1981 and if considered in view of the gazette publication declaration u/s 6 date is earlier then the notification u/s 4 though in the news papers they were published simultaneously on 23-5-1991, but, gazette publication is of importance and in any case simultaneous publication of notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 is bad in law and when law prescribes mode that thing has to be done in that manner and it is not a case of irregularity, but, gross illegality, which has vitiated the acquisition. It is submitted that there is no delay in filing the writ petition as the award was published on 7-6-1983, by the land acquisition officer and promptly thereafter within one month the writ petitions have been preferred before this Court. Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that owing to delay the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that once award has been passed land vests in the State, thereafter notification u/s 4 cannot be assailed on any ground whatsoever. He further submits that notifications u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 were published on 23-5-1993. It is a case of mere irregularity by clerical error. There is no prejudice caused when the petitioner has waited for seeing the award being passed in their favour. They cannot challenge the acquisition belatedly. He has pressed into service the decision in Reliance Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria and Others, and the decision of the Apex Court in Meerut Development Authority, etc. Vs. Satbir Singh and others, etc., . He also submits that housing is an urgent purpose. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of latches. Notification u/s 4 in the instant case was issued on 10-5-1991, published on 23-5-1991. Similar is the situation in respect of declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act. In the matter of land acquisition it has been the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hari Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, that delay of 2 and 1/2 years in filing writ is fatal. In challenging notification u/s 4, In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. AIR 1996 SCW 3871 , Hon'ble Supreme Court considered effect of completion of proceedings and held that: 29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. In State of Tamil Nadu and others etc. Vs. L. Krishnan and others etc., delay of 4 years was held to be fatal to maintainability of writ petition and Reliance Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria and Others, . The Apex Court held that delay alone is fatal to maintainability of writ petition challenging land acquisition the notification was issued u/s 4 on 15-2-1993, declaration u/s 6 on 18-5-1994, on 12-12-1994 award was passed and writ petition was filed on 20-12-1994, the writ was held to be belated. In the instant case not only the petitioners have filed the writ petition belatedly, but, they participated in the compensation proceedings also and thereafter when award has been passed by the land acquisition officer. They are challenging the award P/13 also in the instant writ petition. In Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (s), the Apex Court considered the conduct of claimant of not challenging validity of notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 immediately after their publication and taking their chance in award proceedings and finding that the compensation as claimed by them was not given moving the High Court under Article 226. It was held that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition and exercising the discretionary jurisdiction to quash the section 4(1) notification, and section 6 declaration and award made under the Act. It is settled law that once award has been passed land acquisition notification under sections 4 and 6 cannot be challenged subsequently as held by Apex Court in The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. It is settled law that once award has been passed land acquisition notification under sections 4 and 6 cannot be challenged subsequently as held by Apex Court in The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others, and by this Court in Kapil vs. Ramesh Mongol, (1990) 1 MPWN 141 . 9A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the decision of the Apex Court in The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others, it was laid down that after passing of the award challenge to the acquisition notification cannot be made, such a writ petition challenging the notification and declaration under sections 4 and 6 of the Act is not maintainable. Decision has to be seen in the context of the facts of the case as the award was passed and published in the year 1976 whereas writ petition was filed in the year 1992, in my opinion, delay has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of every case. In my considered opinion after the award has been passed, it is not open to challenge the notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act particularly when the petitioners have participated in the compensation proceedings and they have preferred writ petition after more than two years of the issuance of notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act. In view of aforesaid it is not necessary to go into submission whether notifications u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 could be issued simultaneously and it is a case of irregularity or illegality. It may be mentioned that learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court to contend that declaration u/s 6 cannot be issued simultaneously with notification u/s 4 on the same date. He placed reliance in State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. Vs. Radhey Shyam Nigam and Others, . However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Venkataswamappa vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), AIR 1996 SCW 3894 , where newspaper publication was made before gazette publication was held to be case of irregularity Apex Court, held that: 5. It is true that normally publication in the newspapers would be preceded by a publication in the Gazette notification. However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Venkataswamappa vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), AIR 1996 SCW 3894 , where newspaper publication was made before gazette publication was held to be case of irregularity Apex Court, held that: 5. It is true that normally publication in the newspapers would be preceded by a publication in the Gazette notification. It would appear that in this case while sending the notification, which was approved by the Government for publication in the Gazette, simultaneously direction was issued to have it published in the Gazette. Therefore, it would appear that before publication in the Gazette was made, it was published in one of the newspapers. This is only an irregularity in the procedural steps required to be taken under the Act. It does not vitiate the validity of the notification published in the Gazette on January (sic). Learned counsel next submitted that though acquisition is for housing purpose the invocation of urgency clause is bad in law. For that answer is given in Meerut Development Authority (supra) 19. It is now settled legal position that acquisition for planned development of housing scheme is also an urgent purpose as laid down by this Court in Aflatoon and Others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, and State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi and Others, and in recent judgment of this Court in State of T.N. vs. Krishnan, (1996) 1 SCC 450. In the light of the settled legal position the acquisition for housing development is an urgent purpose and exercise of the power u/s 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5A is not invalid. In the instant case I do not find any infirmity in the decision for invoking urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. Resultantly, I find no merit in the writ petitions. They are dismissed. No order as to costs. Security amount if deposited be refunded to the petitioners. Final Result : Dismissed